Microbial risk governance: challenges and opportunities in fresh water management in Canada

Abstract

2015) Microbial risk governance: challenges and opportunities in fresh water management in Canada, Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques, 40:3, 237-249, This paper analyzes the barriers and opportunities that decentralized water governance regimes pose to effective microbial risk assessment and management for drinking and recreational water quality. The paper presents a case study of Canada (a country whose approach to water governance is among the most decentralized in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]) evaluating microbial governance approaches in British Columbia and Ontario. The analysis is timely for two reasons: (1) relatively little research has been conducted on microbial risk assessment and management from a governance perspective; the literature focuses largely on technical and methodological approaches (such as Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment [QMRA] or Water Safety Plans); (2) 15 years post Walkerton,-little research has examined the implementation of source water protection as a strategy to reduce microbial risk in recreational and drinking water in the context of decentralized water governance. A range of issues are considered, including how decentralized governance might enable or constrain microbial risk assessment and management practices, and how the relationships between decentralized and multi-level governance actors might further deepen the complexity of watershed management, particularly source water protection. The analysis indicates that decentralized water governance in Ontario and BC may contribute to difficulties in effectuating source water protection and other features of a multi-barrier approach. The most significant challenges, as identified by practitioners, relate to the fragmentation of land and water jurisdiction, regulation, institutions and mandates, particularly a lack of coordination (both regulatory and institutional) and limited clarity on roles and responsibilities. Building on this analysis, the paper suggests more effort is required to support proactive institutional arrangements, including: inter-and intra-agency communication across levels of government; master planning and other initiatives to move towards integrated policy development; flexible, responsive policy environments; a governance culture that fosters leadership and collaboration; and holistic problem framing and mobilization of interdisciplinary knowledge.

Advancing methods for research on household water insecurity: Studying entitlements and capabilities, socio-cultural dynamics, and political processes, institutions and governance

“…metagenomics) hold promise in terms of radically revisioning our approach to water quality—including the potential for innovative methods that could refashion how we understand, and test, for water quality (e.g. Dunn et al 2015). …”

Drinking water risk management: local government collaboration in West Sweden

“…Responsibilities are divided amongst many actors: politicians, civil servants and technical staff, private or semi-private companies and regulators (Hrudey and Hrudey 2014). National policies and legislation spell out an institutional and legal framework for standardisation and harmonisation, within which the local governments function (Dunn, Harris, and Bakker 2015). In addition, many policy-makers, regulators and stakeholders are engaged in various ways in the water management system, including state agencies, regional agencies, municipal bodies, water producers and collectives of users.…”

“…In addition, many policy-makers, regulators and stakeholders are engaged in various ways in the water management system, including state agencies, regional agencies, municipal bodies, water producers and collectives of users. Coordination and alignment between decision levels and interests have therefore been identified as major challenges to effective implementation of multi-barrier approaches in drinking water risk management (Dunn, Harris, and Bakker 2015).…”

“…In the literature on drinking water risk management, it is acknowledged that failures of drinking water provisioning are caused by many factors: lack of scientific understanding of the system and the processes used, technical deficits, insufficient institutional and organisational resources and capacities such as lack of funding, lack of knowledge, lack of skilled staff, lack of political priority and weak regulation. Organisational practices, policy and regulatory frameworks therefore all have consequences for the safety of drinking water (Dunn, Harris, and Bakker 2015).…”

“…Traditional ways of managing local politics may not be functional when it comes to transboundary issues which require broader collaboration to deal with risks in an efficient way. Studies indicate that decentralised water governance (with examples from Canada) is inefficient with respect to the implementation of source water protection and multi-barrier approaches (Dunn, Harris, and Bakker 2015).…”